Commentary by Frank Schroth
Some town decisions get made and we don’t know why. Others get put off, and we don’t know why. And that “not knowing” inevitably leads to more questions.
For example, why did the Board of Selectmen ______________ Kevin Mearn, the Town Administrator?
Technically, the board voted not to renew his contract. That is being interpreted as fired, dismissed, removed from office etc. depending on whom you talk to. The TA serves at the pleasure of the board. He was on a one year contract and it is their prerogative not to renew it. They didn’t. Reasons given in various media outlets and comments during meetings included the inability to establish a professional relationship with one of the members of the board, poor communication with the Police Chief, and the need for a fresh start and new direction. When asked by a resident at their last meeting what the new direction was and why the current direction was bad, the two members who voted not to renew the contract, Bob Sweeney and Denis Keohane, declined to comment.
It was a severe and serious decision that will have significant consequences for the town. More than a one sentence explanation is warranted.
Mr. Mearn was engaged in a variety of issues. Two important ones are the wind turbine litigation and the shepherding of the Pulte P&S through the Attorney General’s office and then probate court. Mr. Sweeney opposed the choice of Pulte and Mr. Keohane raised questions about the deal during his campaign. What impact will this have if any on that?
There is likely to be a financial consequence to the town for not renewing Mr. Mearn’s contract. The motion made stated that there would be no severance or lump sum payment but that may be contested. Mr. Mearn offered to retire at end of 2013 and negotiated earlier than that if Selectmen desired. Did the financial impacts of these options factor into the Selectmen’s decision?
Whether Mr. Mearn was the right or wrong person for the job is not the half of it. Why the decision was made and how the decision was made are open questions that, lacking answers, raise anxiety and concern.
Our understanding is that all department heads are on 1 year contracts and they all expired at the end of June. It would only be natural for Town Hall staff to be feeling a little unsettled. What is being done to make them feel secure and ensure stability? Who is negotiating their contracts and what lessons learned from the recent decision will inform how they move forward? Did the selectmen consider the impact this decision would have on staff? Is it being addressed?
The Selectmen are meeting on Thursday. An agenda has not yet been posted but they are expected to take up the discussion of characteristics and qualities they want in a Town Administrator. We would hope for two items to be included: 1) why did they make the decision they did? A full explanation for such a drastic decision will go a long way to putting to bed the speculation that, absent such an explanation, occurs and the concomitant anxiety and doubt it raises. 2) A clear plan for recruiting and appointing the best possible administrator possible. One that includes input from department heads and other vested parties that can ensure that whatever deficiencies there were are addressed.
The Board of Selectmen is young and inexperienced. These are the individuals that the voters put their faith in. Their decisions will not always be popular and rarely easy to make; but they have their reasons. They should let the public know what they are.
It appears that Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Keohane believe they do not have to explain their action or in what direction they would like to take the town.
In Mr. Keohane’s case he has failed to explain his insulting comments published in local papers that what is wrong with Milton is that the people in charge were “either born in Milton or grew up here…” If Mr. Keohane feels that way he is living in the wrong town. I understand he owns property in New Bedford. Perhaps, he would consider moving there. I am sure there are many residents of Milton who would help him pack…;-)
It’s all well and good to criticise the decisions made by our elected officials. But we shouldn’t allow our opposition to cross the line into petty attacks and dubious charges.
Mr. Keohane did not say there was anything wrong with Milton. What he said was that it might be a good idea to have a mix of residents and non-residents in key town positions. Indeed, one might think that pursuing the best candidate available, which ought to be the number one criteria, would produce an occasional mix–unless residence in town is confused with best candidate.
There are strong arguments for both approaches. Neither is invalid or outrageous on its face. Suggesting Mr. Keohane should move out of town contributes nothing to the discussion. If people were to suggest that Mr. Yovino move out of town every time he complained about an aspect of town government, we might be deprived of his incisive commentary.
Frank,
With all due respect, I would like to clarify a couple of points from above. Yes, Mr. Mearn and other department heads have a contract, and yes, the board has the right not to renew it. But they serve as employees, and the contract gives the guidelines as to how their jobs should be carried out. Things like salary, raises, goals and objectives, job discription, etc. are in there, but he is an employee. So when you say his contract was not renewed, that is correct, but under the law, his employment ended when they voted on Thursday, admitting he was an employee,(albeit at will at that time} in the motion. They made a huge hash of this problem. Because they were forced in the end to admit he was an employee, Kevin now has legal recourse.
What they should have done was say to Kevin they wanted to go in another direction, and negotiated a settlement that was fair to all. They ended up going out of their way to humiliate a dedicated employee of 39 years. Mr. Hurley and Mr. Flynn both urged the majority to consult with labor counsel. We have such expertise under our town counsel agreement. Why not take the time to figure out the best way to proceed? They just went forward with a flawed motion that further bolstered Kevin’s eventual case. It appeared like they really didn’t know how to do what they wanted, and were not mature enough to seek the proper advise.
Think they are going to attract a great candidate, given the turnover on the Board the last 8 or 9 years? I hope so. What was said publicly just does not add up to just cause, and they look vindictive. Someone would have to think twice about jumping in with no stability, or the contract would have to have a ton of rich termination requirements.
Also, Mr Sweeney actually voted for the Pulte deal, which was the best one financially for the trust, and was a huge win/win for the town. It was a unanamous vote. It was actually Bob’s motion, where he added some language about it falling back to the Copeland bid if we couldn’t get a signed P & S with Pulte. (The Attorney General has told us subsequently they would not have accepted the Copeland bid because it was not enough for the Stoughton Trust.)
You are right that Mr. Keohane was critical of the P & S during the debates, specifically one clause. He failed to point out that the town had written many contingencies in the document so that the town could opt out if we so chose. He just talked about the Pulte opt out language. It was just political rhetoric.
I believe the two selectmen should be made to answer a number of questions swirling around this situation. But what occured last Thursday was definitely not the non- renewing of a contract, the language they used was clear,they said he was an employee, he was fired, they didn’t have just cause reasons to do so, and they humiliated the man publicly. So I don’t think this is over by a long shot. The sad thing is that it could have been done in a clssier way and every one could have left the table with a lot of respect for each other.
John Michael Shields
The legal doctrine of at will employment allows employers to terminate employment with or without cause. There are exceptions to this doctrine, involving whether the reasons are illegal, but we do not know if there are any exception that Mr. Mearn could avail himself of.
I see nothing done by the Selectmen in their last meeting, when they treated Mr. Mearn as an at will employee, that changes the legal issues involved.
The town is bound by the terms of Mr. Mearn’s negotiated contract with the town. Specifically, within the four corners of that document is the provision that the town of Milton must pay Kevin Mearn the remainder of one year’s salary if they do not renew his contract and no cause is given for that action. This case is on all fours. The contract ended on June 30. The selectmen allowed Mr. Mearn to continue to work without a contract giving no indication that they would not renew that contract until the selectmen went into the executive session which we later learned violated the state’s Open Meeting Law’s provisions regarding personnel matters and specific notification that must be given and posted 48 hours prior to that meeting. At that meeting and at the subsequent follow-up meetings on Monday and Thursday the selectmen gave no cause for not renewing Kevin Mearn’s contract. Therefore, the selectmen who were free not to renew that contract are still bound by its terms whether or not at its expiration Mearn became an employee-at-will. That status becomes secondary to the still enforceable provisions of the earlier contract. While the terms of employment may have expired on June 30 the settlement terms do not and are still binding. One might argue that it was a mistake to enter into such a contract but the Milton Board of Selectmen did exactly that and they cannot ignore that part of the contact they now do not want to follow without legal consequences. The selectmen bungled the entire process, ignored sound legal advice and now Kevin Mearn is legally entitled to receive approximately $141,000 in negotiated salary.
So Paul, let me see if I have this right. The former Town Administrator, who we’ve been told over and over again, loves the town of Milton, who also knwe that the majority of his Board of Selectmen did not support an extension of his contract and cited their wishes to move in a different direction without him, is going to try and take the Town for $141,000 for not working. And this causes you no outrage?
I watched and listed to the BOS meeting, when Town Counsel, when asked by the Selectmen if Mr. Mearn was owed any compensation if his contract was not renewed, answered that the Town owed Mr. Mearn no further compensation.
If Town Counsel is right, then you and Mr. Hurley are wrong.
If Town Counsel is wrong, thenn perhaps we should be asking questions of the Town Counsel.
It is time to move on.